Comparison of safety and effectiveness between the right and left radial artery approach in percutaneous coronary intervention

Comparison between the Right and Left Distal Radial Access for Patients Undergoing Coronary Procedures: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Introduction

Distal radial access for coronary procedures decreases hemostasis time, prevents radial occlusion, and improves patient comfort compared to conventional transradial access. Initially described for left distal radial access (lDRA), the right distal radial access (rDRA) is feasible. However, there are no comparative studies to date. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the access site on vascular access and procedural performance.

Methods

From August 2020 to October 2021, coronary procedures performed through distal radial access were prospectively recorded. After propensity score matching, the rDRA and lDRA were compared. The primary endpoint was the proportion of approach success. The secondary endpoints included access time, coronary procedural success, radial spasm, exposition to ionizing radiation, patient comfort, and vascular access-related complications.

Results

From a total of 385 procedures in 382 patients, after a propensity score matching, 182 procedures were compared between the rDRA and lDRA. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Compared to the lDRA, the rDRA presented similar approach success (96.7% vs. 96.7%, p=1.0), less access time (39 (25–60) sec vs. 50 (29–90) sec, p=0.018), comparable coronary procedural success after sheath placement (100% vs. 100%, p=1.000), and not statistically significant radial spasm (2.19% vs. 6.59%, p=0.148). No differences in dose-area product (32 (20–56.2) Gy.m2 vs. 32.3 (19.4–46.3) Gy.m2; p=0.472) and fluoroscopy time (4.4 (2.5–9.1) min vs. 4.3 (2.4–7.5) min, p=0.251) were detected between the groups. No vascular access-related complications were observed in any group.

Conclusions

The rDRA, compared to the lDRA, had the same proportion of approach success and procedural performance, with a slight reduction in access time for patients undergoing coronary procedures.

Treatment Delay and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Pandemic-specific protocols require additional time to prepare medical staff and catheterization laboratories. Thus, we sought to investigate treatment delay and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 positive and negative patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during on- and off-hours. All consecutive patients with STEMI treated with PCI between 1 March and 31 December 2020 were enrolled in the analysis. A propensity score match was used to compare COVID-19 positive and negative patients for on- and off-hours. The study group was comprised of 877 paired patients treated during regular hours (every day 7:00 a.m. to 16:59 p.m.) and 418 matched pairs with PCI performed during off-hours (every day 17:00 p.m. to 06:59 a.m.) (ORPKI Polish National Registry). No difference in periprocedural mortality was observed between the two groups (on-hours: COVID-19 negative vs. COVID-19 positive: 17 (1.9%) vs. 11 (1.3%); p = 0.3; off-hours: COVID-19 negative vs. COVID-19 positive: 4 (1.0%) vs. 7 (1.7%); p = 0.5). Additionally, a similar rate of periprocedural complications was reported. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were exposed to longer time from first medical contact to angiography (on-hours: 133.8 (±137.1) vs. 117.1 (±135.8) (min); p = 0.001) (off-hours: 148.1 (±201.6) vs. 112.2 (±138.7) (min); p = 0.003). However, there was no influence of COVID-19 diagnosis on mortality and the prevalence of other periprocedural complications irrespective of time of intervention.